Donald Clark Plan B

What is Plan B? Not Plan A!

Monday, October 31, 2016

10 reasons why 'Leaderboards suck in learning

Gamification has been around for years (over 30) but I fear
it has recently descended into a superficial, Pavlovian box of tricks,
overhyped by vendors keen to prove how ‘cool’ and ‘contemporary’ they are . In
practice, much of it is a bit hokey, and insensitive to learning theory and, I
fear, the whole point of the bigger game – learning.

Don’t get me wrong, I like gamification, in the sense of
games’ techniques grounded in good learning theory. These include: levels of
attainment, catastrophic failure and repeats, effortful learning, mini-sims and
deliberate practice. What I witness, however, is the superficial buzz of the
arcade; leaderboards, points, board games, sound effects, noise and animated
piffle.

Gamification only works when the cognitive load, that
gamification always entails, results in greater learning outcomes. It you go for
approaches that are superficially buzzy, yet work against learning, in that
they draw the learner away from actual learning, realism, context and transfer,
you will have failed. You may even have
demotivated, rather than motivated most of your learners.

This is especially true of the one gamification technique I
do not like, and do not recommend - the leaderboard. The word betrays itself,
embedding as it does the the word ‘Leader’, but there are many other problems:

1. Decoupled from
standards

Leaderboards are inappropriate for personal development.
Learning is not a race, not the survival of the fittest. Any league table that
ranks people into a linear list decouples the learning from real measures of
competence. You can list all you want but that list is not anchored in
competences just because it is ranked. Let’s say you have 100 learners in five
leagues of 20. The entire 100 may be failing but you can still sort them into a
table.

2. Leaders problem

One of the problems with leaderboards is something I
experienced on a project for a major bank some years ago, where we set up
product quizzes on kiosks (like fruit machines) around the country. The
leaderboard was quickly dominated by a few fanatics, one site in particular, who
would do anything, including cheat, to stay at the top. Leaderboard encourage
people to cheat. These ‘leaders’ became a problem. We had to take it down. This
is something I’ve seen elsewhere.

3. Zero sum game

In general, social challenges, where individual learners are
exposed to group comparisons and scores, can demotivate those who lag behind.
The downside is obvious, seeing people move ahead of you makes you think you’re
not good enough. For every person that moves up a place there’s someone who
moves down so the motivational spur may, in total, be zero. For every leader
there’s a laggard. In fact, it may be worse than this, as even those above the
median point may feel disappointed. In fact the leaderboard technique tends to
ignore the majority in favour of the few at the top.

4. Self determination
theory

Far better to let the learner use themselves as the
benchmark, set self-targets and self-goals, then encourage progress in that
way. This avoids the danger of disaffecting entire groups who do not see their
learning in terms of games and learning. Gamification is often best when it is
almost invisible and embedded in the learning strategy. This ‘self determination’
theory is well researched and relies more on encouraging intrinsic, as opposed
to extrinsic motivation.

5. Short-term gain
but no long-term gain

Over time the above effects become exacerbated. You get a
short-term rush and gain, followed by a longer tail of disappointment, then
disillusionment.

6. Good and bad
failure

Visibility of ranked failure may also decrease that
learner’s willingness to learn through good failure. It’s like cholesterol,
there’s good failure and bad failure. Bad failure is illusory ranking, good
failure is that which you learn from. Ranked lists make learners more risk
averse.

7. Tests not
behaviours

It is rare that assessment within a learning programme or
experience matches the actual required behaviours in the real world. The tests
are often simplistic, too text based often simple multiple-choice. You can do
well on leaderboards by focusing relentlessly on the types of answers required
in text-based tests. See my list of ways to cheat on MCQs.

8. Lower retention

When the score or position in a league table become the
goal, there is less chance that the content will actually be remembered and
recalled. Deeper processing and reflection is less unlikely when your goal is a
score and not competence. It’s a case of in one ear, get the score, then out
the other.

9. Conflict

Leaderboards may induce conflict rather than co-operation.
When winning or moving ahead of your colleagues becomes the goal, collaborative
or team effort becomes secondary. So this individualistic approach may destroy
any semblance of collaborative or team behaviour that one would normally want
to encourage in workplace learning.

10. Transfer

Transfer of skills to the real word is important and
leaderboards set up an alternative, distinct and distractive world for the learner
– the leaderboard. This diminishes the congruence between what is learned and
the real target in the real world, that is the point of transfer.

Conclusion

All in all, leaderboards may seem like a good idea but for one
upside, competitive motivation, but they have many identifiable downsides, statistically,
motivationally and in terms of learning theory. The workplace is not a sporting
venue, not a race for the top. Some areas may be driven by such competitive
urges, arguably sales, but one should not universalise this phenomenon into
learning. The learning game is not a penny arcade game, it’s about cognitive
change – that’s hard and should not be trivialised. I must reiterate that I am NOT against gamification, only its superficial promises. For more see my Don't play Pavlov with gamification - 10 DOs and DON'Ts.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Trump tragedy has its roots in The Apprentice and Leadership BS

Trump has confounded everyone. How could such a sexist,
racist boor become a leading contender for the greatest political job on the
planet – the supposed ‘leader’ of the free world?

The answer to that question may be more mundane than we
think. I would contend, and have contended, that the cult of ‘Leadership’ has
brought us to the edge of this abyss. I have argued elsewhere that the cult of‘Leadership’ led to the financial crisis in 2008. I witnessed that one, was guiltily
involved in pumping up that cult through Leadership training to several major
banks, especially RBS.

This time, however, the effect of the cult of business
Leadership is more obvious. This is my argument:

1. The Apprentice
is the bastard child of reality TV and the cult of ‘Business Leadership’.

2. The Apprentice would
not exist without the cult of ‘Business Leadership’.

3. Trump was cast as an archetypical hire ‘em and fire’em
‘Business Leader’.

4. Trump would not be running for President if he had not
been the star of The Apprentice.

5. Trumps primary card is his anti-Establishment Business
Leader persona.

We know when and how this happened. First we had the
motivational speakers, Robbins and others fostered the cult, then a slew of bad
business books on Leadership, then an global army of Leadership consultants,
training courses, mentors and coaches who pumped up the bubble.

This is a relatively recent phenomenon. When I was first involved
in business over three decades, there was no ‘Leadership’ cult. There was good
old training on competences and how to be a good manager. Along came the
speakers (I saw them one and all), then the awful books, then the courses and
the TV shows. The whole sorry tale is outlined in Professor Pfeffer’s excellentLeadership is BS.

The business ‘leader’ has become a caricature, a monster, a
false God. We created the runway, that allowed these monsters to take to the
air, with TV shows like The Apprentice,
awful conference keynotes who bigged it all up, bad books and then delivered it
to everyone in the workplace as Leadership training. We fetishized Leadership,
encouraged everyone to aspire to be one, rendering the word meaningless, and
bigged up idiots like Trump.“We are goingto win Bigley… Believe me… We’re going to build a big wall... We’re going to
make America great again.” said Trump.

Before The Apprentice
Trump was just another New York big-mouth in the property business. It was TV
that catapulted him into the national consciousness. This is what allowed him
to run for President, not politics. Trump had see-sawed on the
Democrat-Republican axis for along time, mainly because he didn’t care much for
actual politics, only the connections it brought him. The Clintons were at his
bloody wedding. Along came The Apprentice, interestingly created by U.S.-based, Democrat supporter and
British producer, Mark Burnett, and is now a global franchise. It
first appeared in the US but has since appeared in almost every major territory
around the world. Did you know that the BBCs first choice was not the
hideous Alan Sugar but the even more hideous Philip Green? Just like Trump, Sugar
and Green are an old-school money-obsessed boors, with the morals of a
pick-pocket. Full of that hire ‘em, fir ‘em bravado. That’s the essence of this
show. Old male asshole selects from similar bunch of assholes to see who can be
the biggest asshole of them all. Tragically, that’s become the campaign
strategy for the American Presidency.

Mark Burnett has a pile of vile video evidence that could
scupper Trump. So why, as a Democrat, has he not released it? Well. He doesn’t
want to destroy the franchise. If Trump wind the show would be dead. If Hilary
wind much of his audience would hate him and the show. They’ve slapped
injunctions on any leaks and there will ne none. That’s show business folks.

You have to remember how The Apprentice shapes its ‘Leader’.
He (it’s always a he) is the tough guy, the money maker (theme song for the
show is "For the Love
of Money"),
the guy with the power to hire and fire. He is a little God with power over his
chosen people. He doesn’t have any moral, intellectual or political qualities.
He’s an operator. He gets things done. Note that Trump is not even a great
business person, not a Silicon valley CEO, not a contemporary figure. He’s an
old-school, lecherous bankrupt in a bad suit. This is the old business
narrative of the Leader as a powerful, patriarchal money-maker. That’s Trump’s
narrative for President.

Trumps secret sauce

It is no accident that trump’s supporters are the older, TV
goggling folks who get their sustenance from combative TV. It’s The Apprentice,
Survivor, The Voice, Fox News. It’s a fight till the end and winner takes all.
The US has always admired this individualistic, frontier spirit and is rightly
suspicious of the old networks and dynasties. They want to buy the myth that
anyone can become President. In fact, US Presidents have often been related to
each other – two have been sons, one a grandson, and many cousins or related by
marriage. Never has the Presidential race been so nepotistic than in the modern
age. Dynasties such as the Kennedys, Bushes and now Clintons have emerged to
put to rest the idea that this is a meritocratic process. For the last 50 years
or so you needed two things – connections and money.

Obama was, for two terms, a wonderful aberration but he
redefined US politics by tapping into connections made through TV and social
media. One could argue that we’re back to business as usual. Or are we? Trump
has found a new winning formula – he has millions of connections, like Obama,
this time through popular TV, and he has his own money. That has proven to be a
new and interesting combination, as it allows him to attack his opponents,
Democrats and competitor and dissenting Republicans with the charge of being
the Establishment. Who can deny that it has worked. He’s neck and neck with
Hilary Clinton the Democratic heir apparent?

Trump has played a card he learnt on The Apprentice. He instinctively know what Baudrillard has been telling
us for decades, that we increasingly live in a virtual world that is now more
important cognitively and culturally, that its supposed referents to the real
world. The virtual has cleaved away from this assumed real world and Trump
plays the Baudrillard game perfectly, recognising that these signs need not be
grounded in reality. His soundbites and Tweets are virtual, in a self-contained
world of cage fighting with other media messages. These are virtual
bombardments that promote ideas, with historical events and fixed viewpoints playing
a minor role. This is a game and the point of the game is to win.

Conclusion

I dearly hope that he doesn’t win on 8th November
but I fear he will. I will be there, in Washington, and will take no pleasure
in either of them winning. Why? One is a dangerous demagogue, the other is a
dynastic democrat – neither are there on merit nor suitable for the challenges
ahead.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Response to Stephen Downes on 'diversity'

I've put Stephen Downes commentary here, along
with my responses. Some good challenges but it gets very, very odd right at the end...

S

Donald
Clark appears to be settling into the role of the voice of the closed society.
His latest foray into this is his recent column arguing that diversity is
"wrong-headed". Leaving aside the question of which monoculture we
would settle upon were we to do away with diversity (I'm thinking Hopi, maybe,
or perhaps Maori) his argument is based on a short-sighted and narrow
interpretation of what diversity means.

D

You’re making a lot of ‘wrong-headed’
assumptions here Stephen. I am a libertarian and this critique is from the
left, as is Adamson’s. I just don’t think that the 'diversity' movement, as it
manifests itself in policies and training helps. I get the idea that a
diversity of views on diversity is not to your liking? I don't regard myself as part of a monoculture. I'm with Mill on this, a plurality of views and feredom of expression. Neither do I see this critique as 'short-sighted' or 'narrow'. It's a considered piece with some practical suggestions at the end. In any case, I'd rather engage in the debate than get all personal and accusatory....

S

Clark's
point of departure is Goran Adamson’s TheTrojan Horse. It is naturally not
available as open content, so we have to rely on additoonal sources to look at
the argument. An earlier report of his, Immigrants and Political Participation,
he argues "successful assimilation of immigrants mainly is achieved by
downplaying the exotic implication of group-based difference." (p.40)

D

“naturally not available as open content” Why
the dig? He’s an academic who has published a book. I use a ‘diverse’ set of
sources Stephen. Ever thought of buying the book? It’s rather good and in my opinion the best I've read - well researched and well argued.

S

Terri
Murray summarizes, "multicultural ideology makes a fetish, like the racial
theories of yore, of ethnic diversity... the multicultural view of immigrants
doesn’t treat them as individuals who have a basic human need for
self-determination; rather, 'the immigrant' is an abstract type, a species, a
race." Worse, writes Murray, "When it comes to ethnic groups
themselves, the rights of dissenting minorities within these groups are rarely
defended. That’s because the multicultural agenda treats ethnic subcultures as
homogeneous groups."DAdamsondoes indeed argue this case, like Scruton and many others. So do I. To widen the net somewhat Peter Wood's - The Invention of a Concept, Rumy Hasabn's Multiculturalism and Yehudi O Webster's Against the Multicultural Agenda are also worth considering, as there are many more arguments than this 'fetish' argument.

Clark takes
this one step further, addressing diversity training. He writes, "Major
studies from Dobbin, Kalev and Kochan show that diversity training does not
increase productivity and may, in fact, produce a backlash. Most don’t know if
it works as evaluations are as rare as unicorns"

Clark makes
his case in ten points, and we'll address them in turn. The headings are Clark's,
not mine.

1. Ideology
of Diversity

The case in
both Adamson and Clark is that the choice is being force upon us between
individual freedom and the rights of a culture to assert itself. We'll revisit
this theme many times. But to begin, the argument in favour of diversity is
itself being presented as an ideology, against which no dissent is allowed.

"‘Diversity’
is a word that cannot be questioned," writes Clark. "The rhetoric
that surrounds diversity in itself seems to censor debate, a diversity of views
being the first victim."

The
existence of Adamson's report and Clark's column are, of course,
counter-examples to this proposition, and there is no shortage of writing
against the concept of diversity available for anyone to read. A quick search
reveals the article Against Diversity published by the National Association of
Scholars, a similar article published in the Economist, Walter Benn Michaels
against diversity in New Left Review, and the list goes on and on.

D

My point was not the esoteric world that you, Adamson and I sometimes inhabit Stephen. Even you admit to not having the read
Adamson.I critique the theory and real
implementation of this stuff in real organisations and political discourse, in both the public and
private sector. This is an area I know well having spent over 30 years designing,
delivering and being told to take, diversity courses. In my experience and in the research, adequate definitions are rare and the sizeable research is rarely known and almost never, in my experience, quoted or even considered. 'Diversity' is taken as an assumed 'good' despite the evidence, is largely
taken as a given and little real skepticism or debate takes place in this context. I wrote this piece to bring these arguments to an audience of largely practitioners, who have not read this stuff.

S

Indeed, I
wonder just what sort of opposition it is that they feel has been prohibited.
Some of the more extreme expressions against diversity (of which, again, there
have been many) speak of dress codes, language restrictions, and prohibitions
against some religions. At a certain point the opposition to diversity tends to
blend with outright racism. It is no surprise to see people react poorly to
this (though one observes in the Trump and UKIP campaigns a suggestion that
even this maay be tolerable).

Clark seems
to suggest that this 'ideology' in favour of diversity is what supports the
phenomenon of diversity training, despite evidence speaking against it.
"The vast amount of time and money spent on diversity training, when
evaluated, is found wanting, mostly ineffective, even counter-productive,"
he writes. It's an old argument, a favourite of the Harvard Business Review
set, and not surprising to see it repeated here.

D

I am neither racist nor a supporter of Trump or UKIP, I am a person of libertarian and strong left learnings. You also seem to be writing off the 'Harvard Business
Review set' with no real arguments. That’s fine. I don’t. Then follow up with
another ad hominem dig “not surprising to see it repeated here”. It's not right align me with people I don't agree with or accuse me of being something I'm not. Stick to the arguments.

S

The same
could be said (and, indeed, has been said) about training in general. Yet
workplace training persists, not because whatever it promotes is held forth as
some sort of ideology, but because workplace training officers don't know
better, and because managers cling to traditional and outmoded views about
training.

D

Agree – that is exactly my point. You argue first that there's plenty of debate and evidence then state that this community doesn't "know better'. That's being inconsistent. I also agree that they are clinging to traditional and outmoded views - that, for me, includes much compliance training and 'diversity' training.

S

It's not
surprising at all that forced diversity training can be ineffective; people
respond poorly to coercion. But at the same time,"When attendance is voluntary, diversity
training is followed by an increase in managerial diversity," said
Alexandra Kalev, a sociologist at the University of Arizona, (once of the
researchers cited above).

D

Indeed. But voluntary training suffers from two
things 1) it is poorly attended and relatively rare, 2) the self-selecting
groups make evaluation difficult.

S

The
'ideology of diversity' argument is a red herring. It is not based in fact. And
it fails as an explanation of the failure of training.

D

The fact that it is unquestioned as an
intrinsic good by most training departments with no debate, reinforces my
point. Adamson does a detailed analysis of diversity programmes across Swedish
Universities and finds them wanting on this very point of being an ideology without foundation. These
are real organisations spending real money with real intent but no real
definition or evidence. This chimes with my own experience.

S

2.
Groupthink

Clark
writes, "Companies, worldwide spend many hundreds of millions of dollars
each year on diversity training. The tragic truth is that most of this is
wasted. Groupthink seems to be at the heart of the matter."

'Groupthink'
is a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis to describe what occurs
when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a
deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p.
9).

Is that
what is happening here? Clark cites "groupthink among compliance training
companies, who simply do what they do without supporting evidence and tout
ineffective ‘courses’. Groupthink in HR, who find it easier to just run
‘courses’ rather than tackle real business problem." This sounds like the
problem of a monoculture, not one particular to proponents of diversity.

D

Yes. That is my point. You have already mentioned the groupthink within training departments. Remember also that the
diversity make up of HR and training tends to be more ‘diverse’ than most other
departments, with far better gender and ethnic ratios. It tends not to be a
monoculture.

S

Indeed, diversity
- a broader sense of diversity than the caricature being criticized by Clark
here - is often offered as a response against groupthink. As this article
states, "Groupthink occurs when a highly homogeneous, cohesive group fails
to critically analyse and evaluate alternative ideas for the sake of harmony
and conformity. In such a group, disagreement with the consensus is
discouraged, which eliminates independent thinking and creativity."

It is
important to understand that diversity is more than the mere celebration of
exotic cultures. There are many ways in which people can be diverse, and the
promotion of diversity is centered around encouragement of distinct
perspectives and points of view, not just the elimination of offensive
behaviour.

D

I agree but not as framed by the current diversity movement and its workhorse 'diversity training'. 'Disagreement with the concensus' does not take place on the diversity issue and its implementation within organisations. That is exactly my point.

S

This is
called 'thought diversity'. "Thought diversity “goes beyond the
affirmation of equality - simply recognizing differences and responding to
them. Instead, the focus is on realizing the full potential of people, and in
turn the organization, by acknowledging and appreciating the potential promise
of each person’s unique perspective and different way of thinking”, summarizes
a 2013 study by Deloitte Consulting.

D

I agree. As a fan of Mill, this has been a lifelong political belief of mine. I spend a good deal of my time promoting diversity of thought. Although you seem to be somewhat against
my ‘diversity of thought’ and downright hostile in some of your responses! I'm in favour of this individualised approach and the move away from diversity towards inclusion - as are Deloitte.

S

3.
Ill-defined

It may be
that Clark was thinking along similar lines as he wrote his piece, as his next
argument focuses on the vagueness of the term 'diversity'.

"One
could invoke the idea that individuals are unique, and this uniqueness is
paramount. Unfortunately, it then focuses on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
orientation, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or
other ideologies," he writes.

What Clark
sees to be doing is drawing a distinction between what might be called
individual-based diversity and group-based diversity. Indivisual-based
diversity might include a person's unique point of view, perhaps their income
level, and the like, while (he says) "But ethnicity, gender and so on are
terms associated with the collective, not the individual."

D

Well aware of the distinction between
individual and group diversity. Indeed, I make that very distinction and it is
one of the fundamental tensions when defining diversity. In my experience, discussions and courses on diversity focus on identified groups, rather than
the idea of individuals.

S

I'm sure
this would come as a surprise to people who happen to find themselves Chinese,
women, or gay. I still remember seeing a documentary about race, where the
speaker was objecting to the idea of people being 'colour blind'. "My
blackness is who I am," said the man. "It is myself, it is my
identity."

And that's
the thing about race, culture, religion, gender, orientation, and the other terms
associated, as Clark says, with the collective. There is no 'black collective'.
Or, to put it another way, all forms of fiversity apply equally well to the
group and to the individual. It is a simple and fundamental point of logic,
known since Aristotle, that any property can be used to define a category.

D

I know my Aristotle (you’re showboating here)
but this is a red herring. I’m not arguing against that point but the fact that
in most cases the focus is not on a combination of both, but the collective groups. Adamson does a good job on this. Indeed individual voices and perspectives are often subsumed, even discouraged, in favour of collective groups. In addition, the group approach, through the politics of identity, tend not to side with groups that are say 'nationalist' or 'poor'. The 'poor' are often left out of the equation, indeed caricatured as stupid and racist.

S

One of the
fundamental elements of diversity training is the effort to show people are
fundamentally individuals and that it is inappropriate to treat them as though
they were all the same. Even in a close-knit community (the Mormons, say, or
Cook Islanders) it is a category error to create and apply 'collective'
properties (like, say, "all Mormons wear white shirts", or "all
Cook Islanders love the ocean") to individuals.

D

Most diversity
training programmes do no such thing. I’ve designed some, delivered lots to many major companies and public sector organisations, and
been on the receiving end of several. Believe me, you’re painting a utopian
view of the training here.

These syllogisms are irrelevant and I'd certainly argue that they are not 'category mistakes' but logical errors. In fact I'd say that these are the sorts of logical errors that the designers of diversity programmes often make.

S

We don't
need to define diversity; only people consumed with group identity need to do
that. The core idea behind diversity is that we encourage and respect
differences between individuals. The prrinciple is the sae whether we are
talking about their race or their taste in motocycles.

D

I agree but this is not helped by the training
or type of diversity thinking I’m critiquing.

S

4, Lazy
Cultural Relativism

As someone
who has spent a lifetime as one who would be defined as a 'cultural
relativist', I can say with assurance that there is nothing lazy about it. It
is a constant effort to remind myself that other people may have different
values, beliefs, and world-views than I do.

D

We need to define ‘cultural
relativism’ here. There’s a difference between reminding oneself and being
aware of differences, without regarding them all as valid or equal, many equate
this with moral relativism (that I regard as lazy). I'd be happy with the cultural relativism that you espouse, but that's not what I encounter.

S

At the same
time, I find that my own unique set of values, beliefs and world-views are
substantially different from the majority, and I must struggle with this every
day as well. For example, I believe that showing McDonalds advertising to
children is morally wrong, I believe that people reason by means of similarity
and metaphor, not logic and mathematics, and my world view does not include
universals or laws of nature.

Clark
writes, "a lazy cultural relativism descends, disallowing criticism of
illiberal cultural norms. Freedom of speech is under attack from ‘trigger
theory’, art is censored, honour crime not ruthlessly dealt with, FGM still
prevalent. Any definition of diversity is glossed over and replaced with
diversity plans."

This
one-paragraph argument is itself lazy and poorly thought out. I understand that
some people find the cultural practices of other cultures to be morally
repugnant. I recognize they feel that way and may indeed even argue that way.
Where we come into disagreement is when the other person represents their moral
perspective as fact, and depicts their own culture as obviously superior to the
other.

D

Indeed. I'll try to live up to your standards on 'not being lazy' (can't you just debate without being such a dickhead) - let’s explore them one by one…

S

In the case
of the four items listed by Clark, there are well-tolerated practices in my own
culture, and his own culture, that are equally barbaric, and yet treated as
normal. For example, one society that opposes 'honour killings' is fine with
'stand your ground' laws that permit legal homicide.

D

'Stand your ground' - not on my patch (it’s a US thing largely). But
in this case, the comparison is, as they say, odious. There is a big difference
between someone who is, an innocent, in a defensive position (self-defence laws), using force in
defence of themselves, as opposed to an innocent woman (it is
almost always women) who are innocently stoned, killed or have acid thrown on
their faces in honour crimes.

S

Other
societies that condemn female genital mutilation (FGM) as barbaric are fine with
the routine practice of MGM (male genital mutilation).

D

I agree – although, again like ‘honour
killings’ I do not think they are directly comparable. FGM has male intentions in
terms of taming female sexuality and real physiological and life consequences for those woman. Circumcision,
apart from occasional medical complications, does not. FYI I’m against both.

S

For my own
part, I believe that both murder and mutilation are both wrong, yet I have not
found one culture on earth that believes these without reservation.

Stay calm Stephen, we can both occasionally drift into being sanctimonious. On the one paragraph issue - it’s a blog not a book. The ‘lazy’ thinking I’m
referring to is not the serious philosophy but the shallow thought I frequently
experience in organisations and elsewhere. The idea that everything has equal
value and validity.

S

5. Not an
Intrinsic Good?

Clark
argues that diversity is not an "intrinsic good", giving examples
where sameness may be preferred to difference.

"Is
polygamy better than monogamy? Will your coding team always benefit from having
an even gender and ethnic mix or a ruthless focus on competence? Diversity rhetoric
praises ethnic presence but could be a substitute for excellence and
ideas?"

Clark slips
into this short paragraph the old idea that support for diversity means
sacrificing excellence. The suggestion is that by focusing on including (say) a
person of colour on a team, we may be excluding a more qualified (or more
competence, etc.) person who is not diverse.

D

Didn’t mention colour. Indeed, most exclusion
in England, where I live, is class based, by socio-economic group and often, in recruitment, accent. There are many filters here. I a member of a minority myself, I use it these terms in a general
sense. However, I have seen tokeistic recruitment, especially to Boards in the UK, on the back of the diversity agenda. Again, I think this prioitises groups over individuals and am uneasy with this approach.

S

This
proposition depends on the idea that there is one set of properties - coding
excellent, for example - that is relevant to team formation, and there are
other sets of properties - cultural background, for example - that are not
relevant. This presupposition depends in turn on the idea that the relevant set
of properties could be identified and that differences in those properties
could be measured in a statistically significant way.

D

I can, in some cases, make that assumption, not
always, having hired and run many coding teams. What I’m saying is that in some
cases, teams do not benefit from forced diversity but do benefit more from a group
with the same level of relevant skills, programming language abilities and so on. Other skills do matter but they are not primarily related to cultural diversity.

S

And even if
we can address all that it may well be that it is better overall to accept a
less productive team in support of the principle that teams should be diverse.
Because there is always more at stake than the performance of the individual
team. If diversity is a value in society as a whole, this value may prevail
whether or not it is a value in any particular case.

We could
take this view. I don’t as it simply begs the question of what value it is in
society.

For
example, consider airline pilots. It is arguable that we should ignore
diversity in the cockpit because we want excellent pilots. But, first, it is
arguable that even if women pilots aren't as good as men (a proposition which I
doubt, by the way) it is demonstrably the case that they are good enough. And
there is a need for girls to see examples of women pilots as role models.

D

I have some sympathy with the view that there's more at stake here but that depends on your political views and views on the importance of diversity. Interesting example pilots. I want pilots who
are first and foremost competent, especially in the key skill of listening and taking advice
from the team, especially subordinates. In fact this has become a real issue in
pilot training. I have a colleague who trains pilots from around the world and
they have had to face up to the real issue of cultural norms sometimes being
bad for safety, in trainees who bring strict cultural hierarchies to the
cockpit, mistakes are more likely. These cultural norms can, and, do cause
accidents. This is a lively debate with some claiming that some cultures have a worse safety record because of cultural norms.

S

This
depends on the idea that diversity is a social good, of course. I believe it is
- but again, this belief isn't a lazy belief, or even a popular belief. It most
societies around the world, it is a minority belief. Which is what makes
Clark's style in this article all the more astonishing.

DStyle? Maybe I should I have adopted your more accusatory style?
S

6.
Diversity as Conservatism

I don't
automatically dismiss conservatism as wrong. But if it is, would it be an
argument against diversity that it supports conservatism?

D

For me yes. I am of the left and I think it has
exacerbated problems in my own country. One of the reasons for writing this
blog piece.

Let's stop
right there for a moment. The concept of 'meritocracy' is deeply flawed and
almost universally misapplied (this is the other part of the argument from the
previous section). There are numerous arguments against the concept: it
presupposes we can measure merit, it presupposes that merit reflects a person's
worth, and it presupposes merit reflects an individual rather than their social
of cultural background.

D

You may think that ‘meritocracy’ is flawed. I
do not. Neither do I think it is the only measure of a person. You box the
concept in to make your case. I believe in meritocratic recruitment - see my practical
ideas at the end of the blog, that strip out gender and cultural indicators. That, in the end, I think will produce equality of opportuntity and a more 'diverse' workplace, not diversity training.

S

Moreover,
meritocracy is morally wrong. As David Freedman writes, "Smart people
should feel entitled to make the most of their gift. But they should not be
permitted to reshape society so as to instate giftedness as a universal
yardstick of human worth." Moreover, it is the gifts one has received in
life that contribute to whatever qualities we call 'merit' - and luck does not
convey any sort of moral primacy or quality of judgement. One only needs to
observe the behaviour of the wealthy and gifted of British society to see that.

D

I find your definition of meritocracy as 'giftedness' astonishing. This is an absolute jumble of assumptions and
an argument that defines meritocracy as some sort of genetic gift. I do not hold and
have rarely heard this view. The idea that the wealthy and gifted of British
Society believe in meritocracy is, of course, laughable.

S

Where Clark
is correct is that diversity brings with it difficult choices. As he observes,
"From a feminist point of view, diversity may tolerate attitudes, cultural
norms and behaviours that may prevent gender equality." Quite so. Nobody
is automatically right in a diverse society. Every form of difference needs to,
and has the right to, make a case. Ultimately it's about choice and deciding
for oneself.

He also
writes, " It prevents us from taking a secular view of the world, as we
give in to relativism and acceptance." This is not true.I take a secular
view of the world, as everyone knows. I also encourage those who wish to pursue
a religious view of the world to do so. What 'diversity' means is that they
can't force me to be religious, and I can't force them to be secular. Indeed,
it's even a matter of bad taste to even try.

D

Re – secular. The diversity agenda drove the creation of faith schools in the UK - started by Blair and continued by the right to this day. In concrete cases such as
religious schools (we have them in the UK) and religious instruction in schools
(compulsory in the UK), the secular is under attack. I’m not forcing anyone to
be secular, one should be free to believe in Gods if you wish (I'm a libertarian remember), but I do believe
in secular education, as in that case I want the opening up of young minds, rather than closing
them down with single belief systems. I’d much rather teach the diversity of
philosophy.

S

"The
group trumps the individual," he writes. "It pits the poor against
the poor. Ultimately, it is the dull traditionalism of conservatism." It
does so only if we view these as struggles in which one or another type of
diversity must ultimately prevail. But this is unreasonable. Nobody thinks that
it is 'diversity' to hold that Sharia law ought to apply in all cases.

D

Complex one this. I do, however, think that one
ideology of diversity has prevailed, the group over individual definition and
the argument based on productivity. On your last point, this agenda has led to
the appointment of Sharia judges in the UK, something I strongly disagree with.

S

The people
who oppose diversity are the ones pitting one group of people against another;
they are, indeed, the ones who are representing them as groups in the first
place.

7.
Diversity does not lead to increased productivity

This was
the major point raised by Adamson and others, and yet it begs the question: who
said the objective of diversity was to increase productivity in the first
place?

D

My target here is clearly diversity ‘training’.
I can’t think of a single instance where this argument was not presented (without
evidence) as being true in all of these courses. It’s a mainstay argument. ‘Diversity’ leads to increased productivity’
is a common mantra in training.

S

So we have
Thomas Kochan saying, "There are no strong positive or negative effects of
gender or racial diversity on business performance." But big deal.

D

It is a big deal if the hundreds of millions
could have been spent, not on the mirage of productivity increases, but other
more worthwhile goals.

S

"
According to the American Society for Training and Development's 2002 state of
the training industry report, only one in 10 companies attempts to create
results-based evaluations of its training programs."

Companies
engage in diversity training to avoid litigation and human rights cases. They
also do it because women and ethnic minorities (among others) are larger and
larger parts of their customer base. To work in a global environment pretty
much requires understanding of, and acceptance of, other cultures.

D

This is true but avoiding litigation through
box-ticking courses is part of the ideology of diversity which I abhor. When HR
becomes the department that protects the organization from its own employees –
something has gone badly wrong. There are other better ways of doing things.

S

The
five-year study referenced by Clark earlier and in this section provides an
unambiguous statement in support of diversity:

Diversity
is a reality in labor markets and customer markets today. To be successful in
working with and gaining value from this diversity requires a sustained,
systemic approach and long-term commitment. Success is facilitated by a
perspective that considers diversity to be an opportunity for everyone in an
organization to learn from each other how better to accomplish their work and
an occasion that requires a supportive and cooperative organizational culture
as well as group leadership and process skills that can facilitate effective
group functioning.

The same
authors continue:

training
programs must help managers to develop the leadership and group process skills
needed to facilitate constructive conflict and effective communication...
raining programs that improve the skills of managers and team members may be
particularly useful, but training alone is not likely to be sufficient.
Organizations must also implement management and human resource policies and
practices that inculcate cultures of mutual learning and cooperation.

It's always
a good idea to read the articles you cite.

D

I do and have represented this accurately. I also wrote a very specific and seprate blog outlining the varied conclusions. I
support management and human resource policies that do this and list them at
the end of the blog piece, as I think they are progressive and do work.

S

8. Diversity
shows virtually no effect

No doubt
Clark means to say here that diversity training shows virtually no effect. Then
it would make sense to quote Frank Dobbin saying "Practices that target
managerial bias through…diversity training, show virtually no effect.”

I do. Maybe
not as clear as it should be but these studies do look at training as an
intervention.

Clark has
cited this study numerous times through the years, though the number of
citations it has received (969, according to Google Scholar) suggests that he
protesteth too much when he says it was "ignored".

Again – you
give in the rather esoteric world of Google Scholar Stephen. Citations are no
real measure of activity within organisations.

It is worth
noting, first of all, that Dobbin et.al. are not opposed to diversity itself.
Indeed, the paper reads as supportive of diversity, with the authors surveying
companies to find out what workss. That's why we read not simply that diversity
training has no effect, but rather, a range of programs that do have an effect:

The most
effective practices are those that establish organizational responsibility:
affirmative action plans, diversity staff, and diversity task forces. Attempts
to reduce social isolation among women and African Americans through networking
and mentoring programs are less promising. Least effective are programs for
taming managerial bias through education and feedback.

Fair
enough. But that's certainly not the persepective Clark would have us believe
the authors represent.

D

You are right. I take a stronger line that
Dobbins but the evidence on ‘training’ is clear. That’s why I put the general
points first, building on Adamson. Then tackle the training issues.

S

9. More
harm than good

Once again
it is not clear whether Clark is talking about diversity in general or
diversity training in particular (he appears to conflate the two throughout the
article).

I think we
can take it as a given that diversity programs, including training programs,
can spark a backlash. There is ample empirical evidence of the backlash. The
mere presence, for example, of women with an opinion seems to be very
threatening to a certain subset of society. It is not surprising to see this in
response to training programs as well.

Indeed.

The
anti-diversity backlash isn't unique to diversity training. Human resource
writers have observed the backlash to all sorts of diversity programs, not just
training. Even when the program is voluntary, it has triggered a backlash. It
happens because the people who used to benefit from a monoculture no longer
benefit. "The researchers reported that diversity efforts have led to
increased numbers of women and minorities attaining managerial positions, but
sometimes those efforts “can stimulate backlash among non-beneficiaries who may
feel unfairly disadvantaged by these policies,” the report states."

D

Yip. This is why Dobbins and others (the
Harvard Business mob`) you referred to, suggest other forms of intervention as
better in terms of actual results. I have a lot of sympathy with this view as I feel it moves away from the ideology of diversity towards more sensible
management techniques, free from much of the false rhetoric. These sections are about diversity 'training. That's what the studies were evaluating.

S

It is not
at all clear that this backlash constitutes "more harm than good".
There was significant backlash against the freeing of the slaves in the mid
1800s in the United States, but this backlash not mean that the freeing of the
slaves caused "more harm than good". Any time an unfairly privileged
class of people loses that privilege, there will be a backlash.

D

True. It is not a given but when interventions
are available that do not have this effect and produce better results, the
choice is clear.

S

10. No
evaluation

It is not
true that there has been no evaluation of diversity training programs, because
then it would be impossible to state - as Clark has done consistently through
this article - that diversity training has had no effect. Obviously some
evaluation has taken place.

D

Straw man. I didn’t say NO evaluation has taken
place. I quote several large-scale evaluative studies! You can't accuse me of not being aware of something I have done in detail. One, Kochan,
does however say “that none of the companies he contacted for his study had
carried out any systematic evaluation of diversity training.” What I am saying
is that diversity programmes are rarely evaluated by organisations themselves.

S

Clark cites
another of Kalev's studies, this one a 2008 review of 830 companies. According
to this article, the study found "the kind of diversity training exercises
offered at most firms were followed by a 7.5 percent drop in the number of
women in management. The number of black, female managers fell by 10 percent,
and the number of black men in top positions fell by 12 percent."

But even
this isn't the condemnation of diversity training Clark contends it is. The
article continues:

The
analysis did not find that all diversity training is useless. Rather, it showed
that mandatory programs -- often undertaken mainly with an eye to avoiding
liability in discrimination lawsuits -- were the problem. When diversity
training is voluntary and undertaken to advance a company's business goals, it
was associated with increased diversity in management.

So not only
was there not no evaluation, the evaluation shows that in some cases diversity
training let to positive outcomes.

D

I agree. Mandatory, tick-box training is the
key problem but that is the overwhelming norm. Voluntary training can work, it is just very rare and difficult to
evaluate as you have self-selecting groups.

S

Overall

I get that
Clark is trying to be cute, layering the objections to diversity into a series
of objections to diversity training. Had he given his writing a bit more effort
and thought this intent may have shone through. But it did not, and I am not
convinced that he cared.

D

“Cute…. Not convinced that he cared” Why not stick to
comment rather than ad hominem attacks - it's what I'd call 'diversity of thought'. I do care about lots of things and this
critique is from the left. You do drift off into personal assumptions at times
– does you a disservice Stephen.

S

Many of the
articles offered by Clark against diversity training are arguments against the
concept of diversity itself. And if you don't support diversity in the first
place, you're not going to supporrt the idea of diversity training.

But the
problem with diversity training isn't the fact that it is intended to promote
diversity.It can be argued (and I have
done so in this post) that diversity itself is substantially valuable (and
whether or not it promotes business productivity is irrelevant). You cannot
have a fair and just society of any type without diversity, much less one that
expects to work and thrive in a global economy.

And the
failures of mandatory training are, well, failures of mandatory training.
Ascribing the failure to the desire to promote diversity is inaccurate and
unsupported by the evidence. Indeed, it feels like the purpose of this approach
is to oppose diversity.

Clark is
free to oppose diversity. Goodness knows, a substantial portion of his own
compatriots do, to the point that they want to expel immigrants from the
country (they probably have bad things to say about curry too). If he wants to
align with the likes of Elizabeth May and Nigel Farage, he should just say so.

D

Why should you align me with anyone? And it's
Teresa May, not 'Elizabeth'. Had you done what you accused me of doing, “given
your writing a bit more effort” you would have got this right. Love curry-
eaten it all my life. ;)

S

This little
dance around diversity training is a sham not worthy of the little effort it
took to write.

D

A 'sham'! What an arrogant ending. For a man who
supports 'diversity of thought' this suddenly gets all too personal. You’re
better than this Stephen. Always had a lot of respect for you but I really do
think you’ve fallen into replacing ‘diversity of thought’ with arrogance and insults. "not worthy of the little effort it took to write" that's a shameful expression of arrogance that flies in the face of everything you've said above about diversity of thought.